CCPR/C/126/D/2685/2015 Annex II Joint opinion of Photini Pazartzis, Yuval Shany and Andreas Zimmermann (dissenting) 1. We regret that we are unable to join the majority on the Committee in finding that, in deciding to deport the authors to Afghanistan, Denmark would, if it implemented the decision, violate its obligations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 2. In paragraph 9.4, the Committee recalls that it is generally up to the organs of the State party to examine the facts and evidence of the case in question in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it can be established that the assessment was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. Despite this, the majority of Committee members rejected the factual conclusion of the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board that the authors had failed to establish grounds for asylum because their allegations about the risk of severe sanction from both their families and the authorities lacked credibility due to significant and numerous inconsistencies in their statements (para. 4.3). 3. The majority’s position is based on the failure of the State party to explore whether the authors’ extramarital relationship could have serious adverse consequences in the country of origin so as to put them at risk of irreparable harm (para. 9.8). According to the majority, it was incumbent upon the State party to undertake an individualized assessment of the risk that the authors and their children would face in Afghanistan, rather than focus on certain inconsistencies in their statements (para. 9.8). 4. We disagree with the analysis offered by the majority. All of the allegations raised by the authors were thoroughly considered by the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board and rejected as lacking in credibility because of serious inconsistencies in the authors’ statements, which rendered their version of events less probable (para. 4.7). Moreover, the documents produced appeared fabricated and did not accord with the authors’ statements (para. 4.3); for example, the authors provided a number of inconsistent versions of when their extramarital affair began (footnote 20), the circumstances in which F.M. told R.M. about her pregnancy (footnote 21), the frequency of their meetings during the affair (footnote 22) and the time of their escape from home (footnote 23). The Danish authorities also expressed doubts about whether the version of events provided by the authors relating to an extramarital affair taking place at F.M.’s home and her aunt’s home was plausible given the prevailing social customs in Afghanistan and whether the killing of R.M.’s brother, even if occurred, was related to the extramarital affairs, given the time gap between the couple’s elopement and the murder. 5. Such inconsistencies and improbabilities were deemed by the Danish authorities, who – unlike the Committee – gained a first-hand impression of the authors, as substantial in nature, resulting in the rejection of their grounds of asylum. We do not find in the record before us any reason to regard the conclusions of the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board on the credibility of the authors and their implications for the risk assessment they undertaken to be clearly arbitrary, manifestly erroneous or a denial of justice. As a result, we are of the view that the majority of Committee members failed to properly apply the standard of review it set out to apply, and did not follow the long-held position according to which the Committee does not serve as a fourth instance competent to reevaluate findings of fact.1 6. In past cases in which the decision of State organs to deport an individual was found by the Committee to run contrary to the Covenant, the Committee attempted to base its position on inadequacies in the domestic decision-making process, such as a failure to properly take into account the evidence available or the specific rights of the author under 1 16 For example, Arenz et al. v. Germany (CCPR/C/80/D/1138/2002), para. 8.6.